What's a 'short' Elmar?

[Dralowid]

Hi all,

Occasionally I hear mention of 'short' 50mm 3.5 Elmars.

I note that one or two of my Elmars are shorter than the others and had assumed it was simply something to do with the mount on earlier 'converted' lenses.

But then I see that some of these 'short' lenses have serial numbers which would imply that they are not 'conversions'.

Could someone fill in some background?

Thanks

Michael

 

[HuubL]

They're short on the camera when pushed in..???

 

[Erik van Straten]

Hi Michael!

All I know is that the latest Elmars, the "true" redscale Elmars (those wich are not conversions) are slightly longer than all the others. They are in fact so long that, when mounted on an M3, they damage the inside of the camera when they are pushed in.

Erik.

 

[sepiareverb]

😱 Worried about how short your Elmer is?

:angel:

 

[Sandwick]

Erik, you've inadvertently answered a question I've been pondering recently. I bought a red scale elmar a few years ago, a 1957 lens, to mount on a Leica M4-2. I'd read that it would collapse into the camera without making contact with the innards, but it was actually just long enough to make contact with the inside of the camera body in front of the top of the shutter. It was obviously never collapsed to it s full extent and had made a fine job of scratching the black paint away before I noticed - I think it's just two or three millimetres too long. I'd forgotten about this as I sold the m4-2; I bought an M4-P recently and it's the same, the lens hits the baffle inside the body. I've "solved" it by putting a stretchy rubber washer on the barrel of the lens, just behind the head. It's not noticeable but prevents the lens collapsing just the few millimetres that are required to maintain clearance. I've never heard of a "short elmar".

 

[Erik van Straten]

That's exactly what I mean.

Erik.

 

[Laforet]

Hi Michael!

All I know is that the latest Elmars, the "true" redscale Elmars (those wich are not conversions) are slightly longer than all the others. They are in fact so long that, when mounted on an M3, they damage the inside of the camera when they are pushed in.

Erik.

Hi Erik, thank you very much for posting. I have just tried to put my seemingly redscale elmar on my M2 with a CV adaptor, with the back open it collapses fully just 1mm short of the baffles on the M2, does that mean I have been sold a lemon?😱 Besides could you please clarify what do you mean by conversions? I have heard about fake redscale elmars but not conversions, euphemism?😉

P.S. Behind the front of my lens there is a ring of vulcanite to stop the lens head from scratching the mount, if that is gone I guess it would be hitting the baffles anyway, could that be a point of variation?

P.S.2. If there is indeed a longer version, would it work properly with a NOOKY?

 

[LeicaTom]

I`ve never heard the term "short" Elmar.

There`s a "Fat" and "Thin"Elmar and that deals with the f4/90 lenses of the early 1930`s.

There might be a slight difference in length with the older design 1932 to 1957 lenses (that includes the Red Scale one) and the 1958 to 1961 modern design f3.5/50mm`s because they are two totally different lenses, (the "new" modern design Elmar 50mm for Leica M2/M3 is an uncommon lens, even in original chrome M mount and the Screw Mount versions, for Leica IIIG are extermely rare and valuable)
But as I see it, any Elmar 50mm made before 1957 should be the same size and shape as one made in the 1930`s or 40`s.

Tom

PS: I can`t be sure about anything made before 1932 though.....maybe they were shorter while they were uncoupled lenses? Someone has to consult the 1920`s Leica guys 🙂

 

[Erik van Straten]

Hi Erik, thank you very much for posting. I have just tried to put my seemingly redscale elmar on my M2 with a CV adaptor, with the back open it collapses fully just 1mm short of the baffles on the M2, does that mean I have been sold a lemon?😱 Besides could you please clarify what do you mean by conversions? I have heard about fake redscale elmars but not conversions, euphemism?😉

In the 1950's there was a whole industry at Leitz to convert, recoat and modernize equipment from the 1930's. So, many originally nickel Elmars were coated and were given a new mount, chrome with a red DOF scale. These are ofcourse no "redscale" Elmars, but updated earlier versions. These lenses can easily be identified by their serial number. When there is no number, it's for 100% sure an updated lens from the early 1930's.
The original "redscale" Elmars are slightly longer than their earlier brothers, but they can be used without problems on close focus apparatus.
The true "redscale" Elmars have a slightly bigger sharp field (smaller unsharp areas in the corners) than the earlier versions, but otherwise their performance is identical.

Erik.

 

[Laforet]

Thank you again for sharing this useful information. My elmar has serial number 10015xx which i understand is from the 1952 batch. Nonetheless it collapses nicely on my M2, and I still suspect the vulcanite washer to be the culprit in cases where it damages the camera.

 

[maddoc]

Thanks for sharing this and was looking for the answer about two years ... 😱 My Elmar (red-scale) caused exactly the same trouble, scratching the baffle in front of the shutter of my M4-P (also of my former M2 but no problem with my M7).

Erik, you've inadvertently answered a question I've been pondering recently. I bought a red scale elmar a few years ago, a 1957 lens, to mount on a Leica M4-2. I'd read that it would collapse into the camera without making contact with the innards, but it was actually just long enough to make contact with the inside of the camera body in front of the top of the shutter. It was obviously never collapsed to it s full extent and had made a fine job of scratching the black paint away before I noticed - I think it's just two or three millimetres too long. I'd forgotten about this as I sold the m4-2; I bought an M4-P recently and it's the same, the lens hits the baffle inside the body. I've "solved" it by putting a stretchy rubber washer on the barrel of the lens, just behind the head. It's not noticeable but prevents the lens collapsing just the few millimetres that are required to maintain clearance. I've never heard of a "short elmar".

 

[haempe]

I have never heard the term "short Elmar", but the factory code of 9cm/f4 Elmar was "Elang" (= Elmar long).
Perhaps here is simply the focal length of 5cm meant?

 

[bastian a.]

The only short Elmar I know is the Elmar 35mm f3.5. Its name was EKURZ and "kurz" is German and means short.

 

[maddoc]

I have never heard the term "short Elmar", but the factory code of 9cm/f4 Elmar was "Elang" (= Elmar long).
Perhaps here is simply the focal length of 5cm meant?

This would be a good explanation also. However, there seems to be a difference in the length of the barrel between different 5cm Elmar models.

EDIT: Then we have EKURZ - ELMAR - ELANG = 3.5 - 5 - 9 cm ? Makes sense to me ....

 

[FrankS]

35mm Elmar - EKURZ
50mm Elmar
90mm Elmar - ELANG

What's the factory code for the 50mm Elmar? Are there different factory codes for the different versions of 50mm Elmar(ie. red scale) ?

 

[Dralowid]

I have heard the term used in respect of pre-war 50mm Elmars. They are not consistent in size, front to back. This refers particularaly to un-numbered ones and ones that look as if they may have been converted from fixed lenses.

Michael

 

[Erik van Straten]

I have heard the term used in respect of pre-war 50mm Elmars. They are not consistent in size, front to back. This refers particularaly to un-numbered ones and ones that look as if they may have been converted from fixed lenses.

The "true" red-scale Elmars (the new ones in the fifties, not the restored ones) are numbered and do have a triangular distance index. These are longer than the older lenses and damage the interior of M-Leicas when pushed in.
The renewed Elmars with a red depth of field scale have a diamond-shaped distance index, are shorter and do not damage the interior of M-Leicas when pushed in.

Erik.

 

[ZorkiKat]

35mm Elmar - EKURZ
50mm Elmar
90mm Elmar - ELANG

What's the factory code for the 50mm Elmar? Are there different factory codes for the different versions of 50mm Elmar(ie. red scale) ?

Wasn't ELMAR the factory code itself for the 5 cm Elmar? Fits the 5 letter code system.

 

[David Hughes]

Wasn't ELMAR the factory code itself for the 5 cm Elmar? Fits the 5 letter code system.

The 1933 "Wetlar and London" catalogue gives the code as "ELMARKUP" which is odd. It's on pages 12 & 13, which show the Standard model and which was sold as a body alone "LENOT", then the lens is listed and then the pair together as "LEMAX" . I've checked against pages 16 onwards, which is the entire range of lenses, and it's (again) shown as "ELMARKUP" or "ELMARCHROM" in the chromium plated version.

Then in the 1936 and 1938 catalogues it becomes plain "Elmar" and "Elmar chrom" but in the '38 version it's just "Elmar" and chromium plated...

There's similar in the booklets "Handle the Leica" and "The Interchangeable Leica Lens". All London versions: LNY is often different and just adds to the confusion.

Regards, David

PS If I find the time I'll try and get a scan or photo of it but the binding is very fragile for these old books.

 

[David Hughes]

And here it is: